Disposed¶10

Smt.Parijatha v. Special Land Acquisition Officer

Karnataka HC20 Jul 2026WP/21643/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

KIADB compensation deposit before Civil Court; locus standi before passing of award; SLAO to consider representation/objection dated 15.07.2024 and 12.06.2026; final notification 25.06.2024; Sy.No.166/2 Hulikunte village, Doddabelavangala Hobli, Doddaballapura Taluk; partition suit O.S.No.1738/2009 dismissed on merits; RFA No.1247/2026 pending; writ disposed, no order warranted; High Court of Karnataka, Justice R. Nataraj, LA-KIADB.

What did the court decide?

No mandamus issued. Petitioners may, if so advised, file objections to the award if passed by respondent No.1, who shall consider such objections in accordance with law. ¶10

Smt.Parijatha Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No mandamus issued. Petitioners may, if so advised, file objections to the award if passed by respondent No.1, who shall consider such objections in accordance with law.

¶10

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent No.1 (Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB) should be directed to consider the petitioners' representations dated 15.07.2024 and 12.06.2026, not to disburse the compensation amount to respondent Nos.2 to 10, and to deposit it before the competent Civil Court. +1 more

¶prayer

Court's answer

No order is warranted in the writ petition.

¶8

Ratio / Principle

Unless and until an award is passed by respondent No.1, the petitioners have no locus standi to compel respondent No.1 to deposit the compensation amount before the Civil Court.

¶8

Key takeaways

The petitioners are first bound to file objections before respondent No.1 against the passing of any award in favour of respondent Nos.2 to 10; if such objection is not considered, they may then seek a direction to respondent No.1 to consider their objection.ratio¶8
If the petitioners file objections to the award, if passed by respondent No.1, respondent No.1 shall consider those objections in accordance with law.ratio¶9

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution by two women claiming rights in land acquired by their father, seeking a mandamus to the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (respondent No.1), to consider their representation dated 15.07.2024 and objection dated 12.06.2026, not to disburse compensation for 1 acre 25 guntas in Sy.No.166/2 of Hulikunte village, Doddabelavangala Hobli, Doddaballapura Taluk (acquired for KIADB by final notification dated 25.06.2024) to respondent Nos.2 to 10, and to deposit it before the competent Civil Court, amid the partition suit O.S.No.1738/2009 (stated by counsel to be dismissed on merits; appeal RFA No.1247/2026 stated to be pending). Held: until an award is passed, the petitioners have no locus standi to compel deposit of the compensation before the Civil Court; they must first file objections to any award and, only if such objections are not considered, may seek a direction for their consideration. Finding no order warranted, the Court disposed of the petition, recording that objections filed to the award, if passed, shall be considered by respondent No.1 in accordance with law.

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:37130 WP No. 21643 of 2026

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

CNR: KAHC010474432026

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶6

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶7

BEFORE

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO. 21643 OF 2026 (LA-KIADB)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SMT. PARIJATHA W/O N. RUDRASWAMY AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS RESIDING AT NORANAKKI GATE, ANEKERE POST, DANDIGANAHALLI HOBLI CHANNARAYAPATTANA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT- 573 116

¶12

SMT. B.GIRIJA W/O N.S.PARAMESHWARA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.61, 1^ST MAIN ROAD SADASHIVANAGARA,

¶13

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

NELAMANGALA RURAL DISTRICT -562 123

¶15

(BY SRI. OMKARA MURTHY G., ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

…PETITIONERS

¶18

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD ARAVINDA BHAVANA BANGALORE-560 001

¶19

SMT. R.RENUKA W/O LATE B.SOMASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.

¶20

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:37130 WP No. 21643 of 2026

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

CNR: KAHC010474432026

¶23

SMT. S.YESHWANI D/O LATE B.SOMASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS.

¶24

SRI. VISHWANATH.S S/O LATE B.SOMASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.

¶25

SRI. S.SHASHIKUMAR S/O LATE B.SOMASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,

¶26

RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 5 ARE RESIDING AT NO.1499, PIPE LINE 1^ST CROSS, KRISHNA DEVARAJA ROAD, VIJAYANAGARA, BANGALORE-560 040.

¶27

SRI. T.R.SATHISH S/O LATE T.B.RUDRAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.

¶28

SRI. T.R.MAHESH S/O LATE T.B.RUDRAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

¶29

SMT. ASHA PALLAVI D/O LATE T.B.RUDRAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.

¶30

RESPONDENTS NO.7 AND 8 ARE RESIDING AT B.G.PALYA CIRCLE, SHANTHI FREE FAIR PRICE DEPO. (ASAHA PALLAVI LUBRI GENTS) TUMKUR DISTRICT -572 101

¶31

SRI. SANTOSHKUMAR S/O LATE B.SUKANYA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

¶32

SMT. SHILPARANI D/O LATE B.SUKANYA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.

¶33

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:37130 WP No. 21643 of 2026

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

CNR: KAHC010474432026

¶36

RESPONDENTS NO.9 AND 10 ARE RESIDING AT GUBBI, CHETHAN TIFFIN CENTRE B.H.ROAD, GUBBI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 216.

¶37

…RESPONDENTS

¶38

(BY SRI. H.N.VASUDEVAN, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI. H.R.MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 5; VIDE ORDER DATED 20.07.2026, NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.6 TO 10 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶39

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 15.07.2024 AND 12.06.2026 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-H AND J AND NOT TO DISBURSE THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT TO THE RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 10 AND TO DEPOSIT THE SAME BEFORE THE COMPETENT CIVIL COURT.

¶40

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶41

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶42

ORAL ORDER

¶43

The petitioners have sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct respondent No.1 to consider the representation dated 15.07.2024 and objection dated 12.06.2026 and not to disburse the compensation amount to

¶44

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

NC: 2026:KHC:37130 WP No. 21643 of 2026

¶47

CNR: KAHC010474432026

¶48

the respondent Nos.2 to 10 and to deposit the same before the Civil Court.

¶49

(i) Petitioners claim that their father had

¶50

acquired the land in Sy.No.166/2 of Hulikunte village, Doddabelavangala Hobli, Doddaballapura Taluk, measuring 2 acres 01 guntas, of which, the Union of India had acquired 16 guntas for the benefit of the National Highway Authority of India. It is claimed that the petitioners have filed a suit in O.S.No.1738/2009 for partition and separate possession in respect of the above property and other properties. During the pendency of the said suit, another extent of 1 acre 25 guntas of land was notified by the State Government for the purposes of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board and final notification was issued on 25.06.2024. The petitioners filed their representation on 15.07.2024 and objections on 12.06.2026 and requested the respondent No.1 not to disburse the compensation and to deposit the same before the Civil Court.

¶51

(ii) The petitioners allege that the respondent No.1 has not considered the representations, but in the meanwhile is

¶52

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

NC: 2026:KHC:37130 WP No. 21643 of 2026

¶55

CNR: KAHC010474432026

¶56

trying to collude with the respondent Nos.2 to 10 to disburse the entire compensation. Hence, they have approached this Court.

¶57

The learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated above contentions.

¶58

Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that the petitioners have only filed representation/objection to the preliminary notification and there is no particulars provided in the petition as to whether an award is passed. He contends that if an award is passed, the petitioners may file their objections and in which event, the respondent No.1 shall consider the same in accordance with law.

¶59

The learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 5 submits that suit filed by the petitioners in O.S.No.1738/2009 is already dismissed on merits and therefore, no indulgence can be shown to the petitioners.

¶60

The learned counsel for the petitioners while responding to the submissions made by the learned counsel for

¶61

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:37130 WP No. 21643 of 2026

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

CNR: KAHC010474432026

¶64

respondent Nos.2 to 5 submits that the petitioners have challenged the dismissal of the suit in O.S.No.1738/2009 before this Court in RFA No.1247/2026 and the same is pending consideration.

¶65

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 5.

¶66

The petitioners claim that 1 acre 25 guntas in Sy.No.166/2 of Hulikunte village, Doddabelavangala Hobli, Doddaballapura Taluk, was acquired by the State Government for the purposes of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board vide final notification dated 25.06.2024. It appears that even before an award is passed, the petitioners have filed representation/objection on 15.07.2024 and 12.06.2026. Therefore, unless an award is passed by the respondent No.1, the petitioners have no locus standi to compel the respondent No.1 to deposit the compensation amount before the Civil Court. The petitioners are first bound to file objection before the respondent No.1 against passing any award in favour of

¶67

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:37130 WP No. 21643 of 2026

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

CNR: KAHC010474432026

¶70

respondent Nos.2 to 10 and if the objection is not considered, they may seek for a direction to respondent No.1 to consider their objection. In that view of the matter, no order is warranted in this petition.

¶71

However, if the petitioners are so advised, they may file their objections to the award, if passed by the respondent No.1. In that event, the respondent No.1 shall consider the objections, if any, that may be filed by the petitioners, in accordance with law.

¶72

This writ petition stands disposed off on the above

¶73

terms.

¶74

Sri. H.N. Vasudevan, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri. H.R. Manjunath, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 5 are permitted to file memo of appearance within ten days.

¶75

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶76

PMR

¶77

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 58

Smt.Parijatha v. Special Land Acquisition Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Parijatha v. Special Land Acquisition Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Manjula Vs the Commissioner

M D Linganna Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Sharath B S Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri, Mahadevaswamy. P Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. K.C. Erappa Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka

M v Srinivasa Murthy Vs the Bengaluru Development Authority